And who (or what) backs up the ruling?

Even if we agree to binding arbitration, what if afterwards I say, "Nah"?

Also its a legitimate and huge problem in the world today (see, land registries). Acting like its easy, and hand waving away all the other libertarian problems is exactly the same thing all extremists do.

The ideological legitimacy of overwhelming force is not a magical power.

You remove that and all you have is disparate groups competing to win the might makes right race.

Also lets be clear, all property you own is because might has made that ownership right.

Our entire social and economic system is a manifestation of the collectively agreed upon rule set of how might makes right.

Take away the State and replace it with "free" individuals all with competing systems of "legitimacy" with no group having an over arching monopoly on final decisions and you will live in a world of perpetual violence.

So a mutually agreed upon system is more efficient than a number or organically occurring individual systems that must interface with each other ?

Even if that one large system isn't always as efficient regarding individual transactions ? And even if that system is sometimes less than ideal ?

Who knew ?

this along with a safety net for people that cant or dont want to risk visiting or working at necessary businesses that arent requiring masks and its problem solved. but the bootlickers on this forum get even more angry about any sort of compensation going to citizenry rather than military, police, billionaires, and corporate cartels. libertarianism ftw!

both are fantasies with no chance of happening?

True. There would be not state to shield the investors but there would also be no state to force them to compensate the victims.

I'm not clear how a private court system is fairer than a public one and I don't see how you eliminate corruption. In fact, I suspect there would be more as there would be no law against bribing judges. (sort of how Citizens United opened up the lobbying industry to corrupt legislators openly)


In short, how are you solving the problems the public sector has by privatizing it. You still have the same actors with the same motivations.

It's just human nature. The lower classes accept that the upper classes have all the pie. But if one of their own finds an extra blueberry on his plate and eats it they turn on him and kill him out of jealous indignation.

Yea, and the argument, your system is less than ideal and leads to X amount of might is right injustice, so we will get rid of it entirely and replace with effectively nothing is off course one for knuckle dragging idiots.

Why change the windshield wipers when you can just buy a new car ?

The parties in dispute agree on a court to make the ruling and agree to abide by it. If you can't agree on a court I don't see why representatives from each court can't work together and figure something out.

What seems silly to me is leaving my fate up to a jury, all of whom could be completely ignorant of the subject matter being disputed.


I should point out that private arbitration is already a thing. Anyway, so people solve these disputes, people. There will still be people in an AnCap society. We don't need the State to solve all our problems, they can't even solve the problems they create. The parties involved select an arbitrator, you both agree to the ruling. Or maybe the court or arbitrator is bundled up with the security firm you use. Different security firms would be incentivized to work together and solve things peacefully.

My security firm would be knocking on your door to collect. And your security firm would do nothing, because you agreed to the ruling and they're aren't going to war for you, because violence is costly and they would lose credibility as a rights enforcement agency.

I was talking about the ability to solve a dispute, not enforce some judgment.

So people can't be free because they are too violent. And the solution to this is to take a subset of these violent people and put them in charge of the rest of us? Well you've now created a system that is a magnet for power hungry people, and since people are violent, it's a magnetic for violent power hungry people. And the result? Hey who would of guessed it, we are always at war.

There would still be agencies to enforce rights.
No one is claiming to eliminate corruption, or that this is a perfect system. Well if judges in a free market court system were caught being bribed, that would hurt their business and invite competition, because people would have more choice on who to arbitrate their claims.

I'm sure the possibility of a judge being bribed would be taken care of in the court contract, and if one party violated it they would automatically lose or something.
[/QUOTE]
In short, how are you solving the problems the public sector has by privatizing it. You still have the same actors with the same motivations.[/QUOTE]

Thats the thing, you won't have the same actors with the same motivation. That's actually the entire problem, the incentives are not aligned with the peoples. Gov't programs can't adapt as well to the people like a private company can. When private companies do a bad job they can go out of business, when a a gov't program sucks it will stick around forever and get budget increases.

The entire system depends on these diametrically opposed people (or their chosen courts, who could be just as opposed to each other's authority) voluntarily coming to an agreement about who has authority/jurisdiction over the property in question?

I got bad news for you about how realistic that is, lol

lol what if I paid them enough for their credibility to no longer factor in? They have one client.

Do you think the historical examples of private armies cared anything about their credibility to anyone other than their employer? I mean, seriously lol bro. The gov't is so evil and bad but private mercenaries are the arbiters of fair justice?

Everyone knows mercenaries are loyal to the highest bidder. lol but, but they might care about future business by people who would want them to ... not be loyal?

What if you were able to hire a 'security firm' that didn't care about rulings or courts at all?

What if you could afford to have tens of dozens of dudes to knock at doors to ask for payment regardless of any kind of dispute at all? Then what?

Everyone else might band together and look for a common defense against unmerited attacks... Hey, sounds like the beginnings of a government and society to me.

Cliffs: the person with the most powerful and corrupt security firm gets to shake down whomever they want with no repercussions.

As for resolving disputes through arbitration, one only need to look through all the unresolved scams on this very board to see how well that works out when someone doesn't want to play ball. It doesn't work in the microcosm of the poker community, yet you seem to think it will work in society at large.

Congratulations, you've invented a system whereby all of society functions by prison rules, but without the guards. What could possibly go wrong?

Also, luckproof, have you ever heard of organised crime? Mafia? Those words mean anything to you? Hint: that's who will be running your society.

All sounds very much like 'merica. Question remains - would it be worse?

So magic ?

That's the problem. If libertarians aren't proposing an actual better system then what's the point ? It juts becomes a religion where you worship a mythical 'Free Market god'.

You mean like the ones the State created when they banned alcohol? Or the cartels they created when they banned drugs? Yes I've heard of them.

The State is a mafia masquerading as a human rights organization.

Even if you believe that, in your world, you will still be paying "taxes" to the mafia who run the scariest "security company" except this time, you will get the square root of **** all in return (not even roads), and if you miss a payment, you'll get your arms broken. So, your idea is objectively worse, and your libertarian utopia will very quickly take a decidedly dystopian turn.

Imagine not understanding this glaringly simple concept.

Sounds like our political system


How realistic is what we are doing now? We have a fiat currency heading to 0, like all the rest of them did, and endless unjust wars that cost trillions.

Who would voluntarily subscribe to ANY service that would break your legs over a missed payment lol.

Still not getting this, are you? Oh dear.